From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mondragon v. Cnty. of San Diego

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 2, 2021
Case No. 3:20-cv-1574-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 3:20-cv-1574-DMS-AHG

02-02-2021

JOSE LOPEZ MONDRAGON, Booking No. 20921587, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM GORE; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES; S.D. COUNTY MEDICAL PROVIDERS, Defendants.


ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A(b); AND

(2) DISMISSING FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Jose Lopez Mondragon ("Plaintiff"), while housed at the Vista Detention Facility, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 13, 2020. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural History

On August 26, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 7-8.)

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before October 26, 2020. But to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. "The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court's ultimatum-either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so-is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal." Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court's August 26, 2020 Order.

The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 2, 2021

/s/_________

Hon. Dana M. Sabraw

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mondragon v. Cnty. of San Diego

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 2, 2021
Case No. 3:20-cv-1574-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Mondragon v. Cnty. of San Diego

Case Details

Full title:JOSE LOPEZ MONDRAGON, Booking No. 20921587, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 2, 2021

Citations

Case No. 3:20-cv-1574-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021)